One of the pleasures of serving as AIA president is the opportunity to stretch my thinking. Take the intense demands to address international practice issues in response to AIA members' business concerns, not to mention the mandates of recent Federal Trade Agreements. In spite of being a 150-person firm, my office has not engaged in the proverbial globalization of practice. So, perhaps, like the many smaller AIA member firms, we ask ourselves: Why should I be interested in these issues?

The short answer is that they do in fact affect us whether or not we are consciously engaged with our foreign colleagues. A global economy is just that—global. And let's be clear: We live in a global community of ideas. There are many good reasons why we should keep international practice models on our own radar screens. Although America's architects have much to share with our foreign colleagues, we also have much to learn.

Lessons to be shared
For instance, look at the leading role our international colleagues are taking in the important area of sustainable design. The work of Japan and Germany is especially impressive. In both countries there are many more built examples of commercial and institutional projects that explore advanced sustainable techniques. Although these "first generation" projects are primarily the result of government policies and intervention, there appears to be a "second generation" of projects that focus on affordability and economic payback while continuing to satisfy the mandates of government policy. American legislators and architects have much to learn in this area—which would seem to be the motive behind a resolution passed last summer in Berlin at a meeting of the UIA (International Union of Architects) Assembly calling on the United States to sign the Kyoto Accord on global warming.

What about the broader issue of livability? As we look honestly at the mixed record of our national response to the challenge of more livable communities—attention to cultural identity, urban planning, and the development patterns of cities and neighborhoods—here, too, there is much to be learned about professional ethics and civic engagement.

Here's another: Just as the development community in the U.S. has been exploring such alternative project delivery approaches as design/build, CM/GC, and variations of design/bid/build, the British are accelerating the use of design/build/finance through their Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which infuses private funding into public building infrastructure such as hospitals. Given a similar lack of resources in the U.S., the expansion of the PFI from our roadways to buildings could have a great impact on the role of the American architect and the quality of our institutional buildings and cities. In Middle Eastern countries, the PFI is being expanded to include operations.

Can you envision yourself, an architect, leading an effort to design, build, finance, and operate facilities in the role of an Integrator/Collaborator? Get ready because it's happening now.

One more: Of major interest are the relationships in other countries among architect, contractor, and material supplier/subcontractors, as well as their collective support and willingness to undertake applied research along with the construction of full-scale mock ups. Here, too, we have much to learn. The collaborative relationships and investment in knowledge development appear to result in more innovation and better buildings than in the U.S.

Benchmarking these and other international explorations will no doubt be instructive to America's architects.

But the advantages of international precedent are not always so clear-cut. To take one example, for many developing countries architectural globalization is a mixed blessing. I heard an intelligent call from architects of developing countries to avoid a sort of international homogenization by respecting cultural identity. It's a call that should resonate deeply within all of us. Our ability to recognize cultural identity is what separates the engineer/builder of the past from the architect of today.

Different conclusions, different paths
Nor are concerns about possible downsides of global precedent limited to developing countries. I remain thankful that the American design and development community continues to reject design competitions. Not only is the competition process tolerated internationally because of its cultural tradition, it is encouraged by our international colleagues as a means, they believe, of identifying emerging talent, encouraging high-quality work, and retaining an open business environment.

In other words, even in those areas where our own experiences and traditions lead us to conclusions different from our foreign colleagues, we can be enriched by an awareness of other practice models. Greater familiarity with alternative visions can lead us to a deeper appreciation for the validity of our own distinct paths. As difficult as it often was in Berlin last July to remain attentive as a representative of the AIA at what turned out to be a disturbingly dysfunctional UIA meeting, the long plane ride home provided a more balanced perspective of the importance of thinking globally.

As my own awareness deepens, I am using an international practice perspective to grow my local practice. In so doing, I am reminded of the words of New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "What's likely to kill you in the new economy is not somebody doing something better; it's somebody doing something different." Unless it was yesterday, there is no better time than right now to cast our eyes, both eastward and westward, to multiple shores.

Copyright 2002 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved.